FIRST Forex Broker provides real users with * positive reviews, * neutral reviews and 2 exposure review!
Business
License
Use high profits to induce investors to invest, eat, drink and play for three months, and deduct 10% of the money within three months. Who has seen this kind of foreign exchange
It was a romance scam. I wanted to withdraw but they rejected it and even blocked my account. I gained little but suffered great losses. Beware of this woman.
This first review evaluation presents a neutral assessment of First. We lack enough information about regulatory oversight and trading conditions. Based on available data, First appears to focus on user review services, particularly emphasizing the significant impact that initial customer feedback can have on product success and market positioning.
The platform seems to cater specifically to self-published authors and related market participants who require unbiased review services for their publications. Research from the University of Florida's Warrington College of Business demonstrates that user reviews have substantial influence on product reputation and sales performance.
The first customer review of any product can disproportionately affect its future market trajectory, potentially determining success or failure. This principle appears central to First's business model, though comprehensive trading-related information remains limited in available sources. The evaluation indicates that First's primary strength lies in understanding the critical importance of initial user feedback, while its main limitation stems from the lack of transparent information about regulatory compliance, trading conditions, and comprehensive service offerings.
This review is based on limited available information extracted from public sources and user feedback analysis. The assessment does not identify specific cross-regional entity differences, as such information was not detailed in available materials.
Our evaluation methodology relies on publicly accessible data regarding user reviews and market feedback patterns, though comprehensive regulatory and operational details remain unclear from current sources.
| Category | Score | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Account Conditions | 4/10 | Below Average |
| Tools and Resources | 3/10 | Poor |
| Customer Service and Support | 5/10 | Average |
| Trading Experience | 4/10 | Below Average |
| Trust and Security | 2/10 | Poor |
| User Experience | 3/10 | Poor |
First operates as a service provider focused on review services for self-published books and related publications. The company's business model centers on providing unbiased book review services, recognizing the critical impact that initial reviews can have on a product's long-term success.
While establishment details and founding year information are not specified in available sources, the platform appears to understand the significant influence of first review submissions on market perception. The service acknowledges research findings indicating that identical products can receive vastly different reception based on their initial reviews across different platforms.
This understanding forms the foundation of their approach to providing review services that aim to give products fair initial assessment opportunities. Regarding trading platforms, asset classes, and regulatory oversight, specific information is not detailed in available sources. The lack of comprehensive regulatory information and traditional trading service details suggests that First may operate in a different capacity than conventional financial brokers, focusing instead on review and assessment services for published content.
Regulatory Regions: Specific regulatory jurisdictions and oversight bodies are not mentioned in available source materials, raising questions about the platform's regulatory compliance framework.
Deposit and Withdrawal Methods: Information regarding funding options, payment processing systems, and withdrawal procedures is not detailed in current sources. Specific minimum deposit amounts and account funding requirements are not specified in available documentation.
Bonuses and Promotions: Details about promotional offers, welcome bonuses, or incentive programs are not mentioned in source materials.
Tradeable Assets: Information about available financial instruments, asset categories, or trading options is not provided in accessible sources. Comprehensive fee schedules, commission rates, spread information, and other cost-related details are not specified in available materials.
Leverage Ratios: Specific leverage options and margin requirements are not detailed in current source documentation.
Platform Options: Information about trading platforms, software options, and technological infrastructure is not mentioned in available sources. Specific geographical limitations or service availability constraints are not detailed in current materials.
Customer Service Languages: Supported languages for customer support services are not specified in available documentation.
The limited availability of traditional trading information suggests that this first review assessment may be evaluating a service that operates differently from conventional financial brokers.
The account conditions evaluation receives a below-average rating primarily due to the absence of detailed information about account types, features, and requirements. Available sources do not specify the variety of account options that might be available to users, making it impossible to assess the suitability of different account structures for various user needs.
Minimum deposit requirements, which are crucial for potential users to understand entry barriers, are not detailed in current documentation. This lack of transparency regarding financial requirements creates uncertainty for prospective clients attempting to evaluate the accessibility of services. The account opening process, including verification procedures, documentation requirements, and timeline expectations, is not described in available materials.
Additionally, specialized account features such as Islamic accounts, professional trading accounts, or institutional options are not mentioned in source documentation. Without clear information about account management features, funding options, or account-specific benefits, potential users cannot make informed decisions about which account type might best suit their needs.
This first review analysis highlights the critical need for more comprehensive account condition transparency.
The tools and resources category receives a poor rating due to the complete absence of information about available trading tools, analytical resources, and educational materials. Current sources do not detail any specific trading instruments, charting capabilities, or technical analysis tools that users might access.
Research and analysis resources, which are essential for informed decision-making in financial markets, are not described in available documentation. The lack of information about market research, economic calendars, news feeds, or analytical reports significantly impacts the platform's utility for serious traders or investors. Educational resources, including tutorials, webinars, trading guides, or learning materials, are not mentioned in current sources.
For users seeking to improve their trading knowledge or learn new strategies, the absence of educational content represents a significant limitation. Automated trading support, algorithmic trading capabilities, and API access information are not detailed in available materials.
Modern traders often rely on automation and systematic trading approaches, making the lack of such information particularly concerning for technically-oriented users.
Customer service and support receives an average rating, though this assessment is limited by the lack of specific information about support channels, availability, and service quality. Available sources do not detail the various ways users can contact customer support, whether through live chat, phone, email, or other communication methods.
Response time expectations, which are crucial for users experiencing urgent issues or requiring immediate assistance, are not specified in current documentation. The absence of service level agreements or response time commitments makes it difficult to assess the reliability of support services. Service quality indicators, including customer satisfaction metrics, support team expertise levels, or problem resolution success rates, are not mentioned in available sources.
Without such information, potential users cannot gauge the effectiveness of the support system. Multilingual support capabilities are not detailed in current materials, which could be particularly important for international users requiring assistance in their native languages.
Additionally, support availability hours and time zone coverage are not specified in accessible documentation.
The trading experience category receives a below-average rating due to insufficient information about platform performance, execution quality, and user interface design. Available sources do not provide details about platform stability, server uptime, or technical reliability metrics that would indicate the quality of the trading environment.
Order execution quality, including execution speed, slippage rates, and order fill reliability, is not detailed in current documentation. These factors are critical for traders, particularly those employing time-sensitive strategies or trading in volatile market conditions. Platform functionality completeness, including available order types, charting capabilities, and analytical tools, is not described in available sources.
The absence of information about basic trading features makes it impossible to assess whether the platform meets standard trading requirements. Mobile trading experience, which is increasingly important for modern traders who require access to markets while away from their primary workstations, is not mentioned in current materials.
The lack of mobile platform information represents a significant gap in understanding the complete first review trading experience.
Trust and security receive a poor rating primarily due to the absence of regulatory information and transparency regarding safety measures. Available sources do not mention specific regulatory licenses, oversight bodies, or compliance frameworks that would indicate proper regulatory standing.
Fund safety measures, including segregated account structures, deposit insurance, or client fund protection mechanisms, are not detailed in current documentation. The lack of information about how client funds are protected represents a significant concern for potential users. Company transparency, including corporate structure, ownership information, management team details, and financial reporting, is not provided in available sources.
This lack of transparency makes it difficult for users to assess the company's credibility and stability. Industry reputation indicators, such as awards, recognitions, or third-party endorsements, are not mentioned in current materials.
Additionally, information about how the company handles negative events, disputes, or regulatory issues is not available in accessible sources.
User experience receives a poor rating due to limited information about overall user satisfaction, interface design, and service accessibility. Available sources do not provide specific user feedback or satisfaction metrics that would indicate the quality of the user experience.
Interface design and usability information, including navigation ease, visual design quality, and user-friendly features, are not detailed in current documentation. The absence of information about user interface design makes it impossible to assess the platform's accessibility for users with varying technical expertise levels. Registration and verification processes, including account opening procedures, document requirements, and approval timelines, are not described in available sources.
These processes significantly impact initial user experience and overall satisfaction with the service. Funding operation experiences, including deposit and withdrawal processes, transaction times, and associated fees, are not detailed in current materials.
Additionally, common user complaints or frequently reported issues are not mentioned in accessible documentation, limiting the ability to identify potential user experience problems.
This first review assessment of First presents a neutral evaluation primarily due to the lack of comprehensive information about essential trading and regulatory aspects. While the platform appears to understand the significant impact of initial user reviews on product success, the absence of detailed information about trading conditions, regulatory oversight, and service features limits the ability to provide a thorough evaluation.
The service appears most suitable for self-published authors and individuals in the publishing industry who require review services rather than traditional financial trading services. The main advantage lies in the platform's focus on understanding user review dynamics and their market impact, while the primary disadvantage stems from the lack of transparency regarding regulatory compliance and comprehensive service offerings. Potential users should seek additional information about regulatory status, trading conditions, and service features before making any commitments.
The limited available information suggests that prospective clients should conduct thorough due diligence and request detailed service documentation to make informed decisions about the platform's suitability for their specific needs.
FX Broker Capital Trading Markets Review
